This thread took on a major hijack! What about the report itself, should it have been published? Is it unneccesssarily inflamatory?
I don’t know. The definition of torture doesn’t include any requirement to “break people”, but I’m not sure if there are any ways to “break” someone (in the context of interrogation) that is not torture. Can you think of any?
Well said.
What a strange thing to try to argue that killing people outright in a war is morally equivalent to torture. Both actions are reprehensible and terrible. But one is arguably necessary (if regrettable), the other is fairly clearly not necessary and in fact is ultimately destructive of the ideals and morals of any nation that practices it.
ETA: As for the question posed by the OP, I for one am glad for the report, and to see some light shed on this despicable practice. Even the CIA should ultimately be answerable to the people, and held to our highest ideals.
eh?
Yes, and no, in my view.
That’s a very convenient pre-torture qualification. It’s odd that the hypothetical kidnapper would tell you that for free.
What if he hadn’t told you that? Or if you misheard him, or if he heard that bit of information from someone else?
Is Jack Bauer going to come in and save the day? Maybe John McClane? Is this a Michael Bay style hypothetical, with lots of explosions, or maybe more of a *Taken *homage?
Great answer, by the way.
Who the hell is “Kdapt”, though?
I totally agree with you, except, I’d find the actions morally justified and necessary.
You were just presented, above, a scenario where it is fairly clearly necessary (if regrettable). Does that make it justifiable?
It’s a reference to Larry Niven’s “Known Space” universe (in novels and short stories.) In short, the prophet of a fictional alien religious order.
It gives you information about those other people, how they’re organized, where their resources are, what their plans are etc.
I’m sorry to say this but it sounds like you’re completely unfamiliar with the torture program that was being run, and I would suggest reading up on it a bit if you’re going to comment on it.
That’s a respectable opinion and quite possibly correct, but there are also other opinions which differ strongly, and they might be correct too.
But either way. that’s beyond the scope of this discussion, which is about a hypothetical case in which you can get valuable information.
What a fascinating exercise in precise semantic distinction!
Oddly enough, I just finished reading “Fleet of Worlds”, and I’d read the first Ringworld years ago. But I never read any of the Man-Kzin war books.
It is interesting that some people keep hanging their opposition on the “fact” that torture didn’t produce results. That’s conditional morality. So - if it was proven that torture did produce results in some cases, would they support it? I don’t think they would. So the “it doesn’t produce results” reasoning is quite disingenuous.
I find your efforts to weasel out a logical, moral justification for torture disappointing, and I reject the premise posed by your scenario. There’s always a better way.
One can oppose torture (or anything) for more than one reason. “It doesn’t work” is a valid criticism, as is “it’s morally wrong”. It’s possible to believe both things are true.
Wasn’t my scenario. Sure there is. I heard that humming very loudly works.
So I’ll include the finish of my post which you clipped… once more with feeling and emphasis added.
“Attacking the basis of all those agreements by not being a trustworthy actor with respect to them tends to negate their effectiveness in reducing the inhumanity of war (note - reduction not complete elimination.) **Being an untrustworthy actor within those systems, and risking escalation of inhumane/immoral methods those systems tried to constrain is a moral issue IMO. **”
Not at all.
Look: if torture produced results, if gay marriage actually harmed straight marriage, if there really were WMDs in Iraq, then supporting torture/opposing gay marriage/invading Iraq would be interesting questions. I’d still oppose them but I could much better understand those who held those positions. We’d be arguing over values, not facts.
But torture doesn’t produce results, just like gay marriage doesn’t harm straight marriages and there weren’t WMDs in Iraq. Supporting torture, just like holding those other positions, is plain ignorant. We don’t even need to get to the debate about values.
In this case, we’re dealing with people that don’t have the concept of “escalation”. They do their utmost to damage us, with no constraints.